Girl Gang

Moviecut—Girl Gang

Girl Gang is really about Joe (Timothy Farrell), who leads the titular group of young ladies. He hooks them on drugs, then gets willing participants in the crimes of robbery and prostitution. Farrell would play pretty much the same role, under the same name, in 1957's Gun Girls. His main girl June is played by Joanne Arnold, who was the Playboy Playmate of the Month for May 1954. This is the kind of movie I find myself loving when I'm not watching Italian splatter or Mexican lucha movies: too old to be teenagers getting in trouble and dragging down everyone else with them.

A study in drug abuse like Reefer Madness, Girl Gang emphasizes the sleazy aspects associated with like-minded juveniles who find themselves corrupted by marijuana, and Heroin and delivers a mish mash of gratuitous exploitation. In an isolated apartment on the wrong side of the tracks June (Joanne Arnold) hangs out with her friends who come there to buy "weed" cigarettes, marijuana, from Joe (Timothy Farrell) who runs a business of selling Heroin to school kids and getting them addicted so they will pull crimes for him. Joe keeps a disbarred alcoholic physician Doc (Harry Keaton) on hand to help with assisting the school kids with clean injections. Joe secures a job for June with a local merchant in order to support her mounting heroin habit. June begins selling sexual favors, and when she is caught stealing money from a business Joe and Doc come forward to blackmail the man into silence. When Joe sends June and some others out to rob a local gas station, a girl gets shot and the police close in on the drug-infested apartment. It's too bad that, given the resources, the movie could not have been better. Judging by the mise-en-scene, the budget for the film looks to be about as good as it was for Detour nine years earlier. The major difference being that Detour has a strong central character and a strong story arc that carries the viewer from the opening through to the end, whereas Girl Gang never seems to focus on the right thing, first having a girl-gang robbery, which introduces us to drug dealer Joe, which leads us to June, but since June is our main character it only makes sense for us to learn about her and where she comes from and why she has ended up at Joe's apartment. Since we never know why June does what she does we have nothing to care about in the character and her downfall doesn't mean anything to us. Part of this is the charismatic screen persona of leads Tom Neal and Ann Savage in Detour. Not to take away from the relative merits of Joanne Arnold, and Timothy Farrell, but they were not A-listers nor were they strong actors, although Farrell did have a stronger presence than the eye-candy Arnold. To be honest Arnold was cast because they had a great body and this vehicle was to sell from the male gaze that was seeking cheap visual thrills from her presence on screen. Arnoldhad done the Playboy spread in 1954 and the producers must have thought they had a sure box-office with her in the movie. She's beautiful to look at but seeing her in motion in the movies it's clear she is not an actress. Her face never registers a glimmer of thought and the lack of her characters progression in the film makes it a flat gratuitous thing.

Sure, they look innocent enough, but, no, they're the GIRL GANG! Marauding, marijuana-puffing minxes on a mission of mischief and mayhem! Working for the devilish Joe (Timothy Farell), these hellcats are out to cause big trouble! Joe keeps these girls in line by getting them hooked on "the needle". We watch in horror, as he goes through the step-by-step process of injecting the dreaded drug! Yep, it's the big H for these hellraising females! Soon, Joe and his cohorts are teaching the local kids to smoke "wacky weed", so they can be more easily led.to "the hard stuff". Who knew that pot smoking and harp music were so intimately connected? In no time, everyone's "hopped up" to beat the band! Joe reaps the benefits of his eeevil empire, turning the youth of America into felonious fiends of frenzy! Prostitution gallops in on its pale horse, accompanied by the boogie-woogie and acid jazz that has corrupted so many innocent souls! Can death be far off? Heed this warning, or pay the price!...

When I saw the title "Girl Gang", I assumed I'd see a Mamie Van Doren movie imitation, with lots of dumb situations, ridiculous dialogue, and a laughable script. This movie about drug addiction in the early 50s is incredibly cheap and not funny at all. A group of high schoolers looking for fun unwisely become involved with "Joe" (Timothy Farrell) and "Doc" (Harry Keaton), a drug pusher and his doctor supplier, respectively. A few puffs of "weed" lead to addiction, robbery, murder, blackmail, prostitution, bankruptcy and just about everything else. The kids graduate from "weed" to heroin, becoming so addicted that their lives are ruined. The acting is horrible and the situations unbelievable, but for some reason the proceedings just aren't funny. I did learn a lot: a heroin injection is a "joy pop", heroin withdrawal is "the jumpin jives", a person can overdose almost fatally on "weed", and 10-minute piano solos seem to be a lot of fun. Instead of being unintentionally funny like "Reefer Madness" however, "Girl Gang" is really pretty depressing. Its frank (though poorly acted) treatment of heroin addiction is just sad. Most of the actors never appeared in another film, which tells me something. If you want to laugh, watch "Untamed Youth" or "Girls Town", but be warned that "Girl Gang" is depressing and not funny. Maybe it was meant to be that way.

"Racket Girls" director Robert C. Dertano's thriller "Girl Gang" qualifies as a vintage exploitation movie about crime and narcotics. Mind you, this abysmally acted, 63-minute, black & white movie is strictly your standard dope-fiend film from fade-in to fade-out. Nevertheless, the casual use of marijuana and the extremely explicit depictions about both cooking heroin and injecting it respectively for men and women must have been controversial for its day. Producer George Weiss couldn't have received any dispensation from the Motion Picture Association of America because the still intact Production Code prohibited Hollywood from illustrating how to commit a crime, and using illegal narcotics very much constituted a crime in the 1950s. Otto Preminger didn't dare go as far out on the censorship limb as "Girl Gang" did in 1954 when he produced his own controversial Frank Sinatra epic "The Man with the Golden Arm" about heroin abuse in 1955 and altogether ignored the Production Code Seal of Approval. Otherwise, "Girl Gang" casts exploitation regular Timothy Farrell of "The Violent Years" and "The Devil's Sleep" as a two-bit crime boss who hooks teens on marijuana and/or heroin and dispatches them to crime crimes so they can fence him the goods and he can repay them with either pot or smack. "Girl Gang" does not entirely concern itself with distaff criminals. A quartet of devious dames hijacks a man's car on a lonely highway and leaves him sprawled unconscious on the pavement, but the bulk of the action follows the crime boss and his efforts to take advantage of women while they perform his dirty deeds. Eventually, the police catch up with him after the girl gang is shot-up by authorities and traced back to his hideout in an apartment complex. The subject matter contains greater historical relevance than the cinematic technique. There is a slackly staged gas station robbery toward the end of the action. Just about everything is run-of-the-mill, right down to William Thompson's cinematography.

Timothy Farrell runs an operation where he gets boys and girl hooked on marijuana and heroin, then sends them out to rob and commit prostitution. When the most prominent name on a cast and crew list is Farrell, you know you're in for a dire time. No one can read a line with any conviction, the mise en scene is obvious and dull, and even the sound effects, provided by Dale Knight are poor; the sounds he offers bear no relation to what is seen on screen, save the occasional jangling of harp strings to indicate a high. Like most exploitation films, this one promises a lot of titillation, but the cheap and sordid production doesn't offer much beyond some necking, a view of Joanne Arnold's garter belt, and a poorly shot, fully clothed catfight between her and Mary Lou O'Connor. If that's all you require for a major turn-on, then you've got an imagination that sets a very low bar.

This movie begins with four young ladies robbing a man, stealing his car and leaving him unconscious on the side of the road. They then drive the stolen car to a man named "Joe" (Timothy Farrell) who gives them $50 each and has a young man take the car to a garage to have it repainted. We soon find out that Joe not only deals in stolen automobiles but he also has a small gang of young men and women who have become addicted to heroin and rely upon him to supply their needs. He hooked them on it and now he essentially owns them. Now, while this movie would pretty much be unremarkable today what's interesting about this picture is that it was filmed back in 1954--ten years before the advent of the "hippies" and the explosion of drugs in the 60's. That said, the subject of heroin (and possibly marijuana) was probably pretty novel for its time. Because of that this particular audience probably had no idea about the effects of either drug. As a result what they are shown about marijuana is greatly exaggerated. Conversely, the effect of the heroin "trip" is somewhat minimized--but not the addictive quality. Naturally, it's that result which is what Joe is aiming for as he skillfully uses marijuana as the "gateway drug" to entrap these young men and women into an addiction to heroin. And they willingly do whatever he says to get their next fix. Whether it requires theft, prostitution, blackmail or even murder doesn't matter to them. Neither does it matter to Joe as long as he makes money. Anyway, as far as the movie is concerned I thought it was definitely dated and had a B-movie quality to it. As a matter of fact, other than the presence of Joanne Arnold (as "June") I can't really think of anything that stood out. Accordingly, I rate this film as slightly below average.

This is, without question, a bad film. The acting is often pretty crappy (with 'actors' who can't deliver their lines), the production values low and the emphasis is purely on exploitation! However, in a sleazy way, it's also very interesting and certainly will keep your attention! It definitely falls into the category of 'so bad, it's good'! This film is of some mild interest because one of the main characters, 'Doc', is Harry Keaton--Buster's real life brother. You can't tell this by looking at him or seeing him act--he's just another apparent no-talent in a vast sea of no-talents! Additionally, the film stars Timothy Farrell as 'Joe'--a sleazy sort much like the guys he played in other no-budget exploitation films as "Test Tube Babies", "Glen or Glenda" and "Jail Bait". He plays his usual greasy crooks--and in such roles, Farrell (a bailiff in real life) was pretty effective. "Girl Gang" begins with a group of nasty women beating a guy up and stealing his car. It seems they are heroin addicts and have brought the car to Joe so they can get a fix. In fact, throughout the film LOTS of troubled people come to Joe for pot and heroin--and Joe is very obliging--giving them their first dose for free. Then, when they get hooked, Joe has them commit various crimes to pay for more. You see ladies prostitute themselves, blackmail, commit robberies and the like--all to get their beloved heroin. Eventually, as in all exploitation films of the era, these folks get what's coming to them. But in between, the film is very explicit for the time--with rather frank discussions of prostitution as well as how to shoot heroin. The latter was VERY realistic--and I wonder how many folks might have learned to use the drug simply by watching Joe give a step-by-step lesson to a newbie on using it! As I said, the film is pretty funny because it's so badly made. Look at the 'ladies' delivering their line when the gang meets up with Joe at his hangout or the cop and doctor talking outside in front of the Prison Ward sign. None of them delivered their lines with any conviction--just like some semi-literates reading cue cards. Also, look for the shootout. When one of the wicked ladies shoots the gas station attendant, she then tosses the gun to the attendant who is lying on the ground bleeding. And, he then shoots the gang members!! Huh?!? But my favorite is the ultra-lame cat fight near the end of the movie. Seeing Betty White and Bea Arthur doing this scene together would have been sexier--and a lot more convincing!! Overall, terribly bad...but a hoot to watch with other bad movie buffs. Enjoyable trash.

This movie is actually one-of-a-kind. It is so very bad, especially the sound, the lines, the acting.... that it is really entertaining, worth a view. I would not buy it, or rent it...but if it pops up on Comcast "Something Weird", as it did for me...check it out. The fact that it shows how to free-base heroin, way back in 1954 , marijuana (Mary-Janes)and the whole drug scene, way back then, just really amazed me. The babes are "cheese-cake" all the way, Joanne Arnold went on to be a Playmate Centerfold May 1954 (The month/year I was born) makes it extra special. Joe, the drug dealer wearing a "tie", the "like Mom's kitchen -so warm and friendly"...the old cars...very entertaining in a strange kind of way!...